My Race card: Race isn't contained in six words.

            A website was created for the new LSA theme, which surrounds race. The website http://theracecardproject.com/ allows one to put what they want to say about race on an online card template with a six word limit. While the project has good intentions, it is ultimately a microcosm of how race is currently talked about in modern day. We constantly want to reduce the issue of race into simple concepts that people can easily wrap their minds around. The reason we do this is because it makes  those who agree and disagree able to easily recognize who's on their side, prompting them to begin hurling "knowledge" at the other side in what makes for the most passive aggressive list of comments you'll ever read in your entire life. What's sad  is that the conversation between them ends up being a race (subconscious pun) to the bottom in terms of content and education because people are trying to win these tiny intellectual battles instead of making a meaningful contribution towards the war on racism (this applies for all forms of discrimination). The race card is a farce. It asks us to create a simple conception of race, instead of recognizing that the issue of race is a large and complicated one. It's not impossible to understand, but true effort needs to be put into even scratching the surface. So no I don't have a race card. I have a race manifesto and I want meaningful discussion about it, not vacuous debate.

Possible backlash:
People might think I've gone too far with this one, but I think if you read the homepage you'll see that its language supports my claim. The homepage even refers to the race card as a "six-word essay". Essays are supposed to be documents that make earnest attempts at explaining something. They aren't mere musings or abridged thought, but instead they represent the very intellectual process I believe we are forgoing with race.

Note: I just realized the website's creation had nothing to do with the LSA theme (in terms of one causing the other), so sorry for the misconception. 

New Section: Raymond Responds to a comment on a random website

Once in awhile I'll be perusing through the web and someone says something that I think is so wrong, I feel compelled to thoroughly comment in reply, explaining to them why they are wrong. Since I'm lazy and I always feel a bit dissatisfied with just leaving the comment on the site to languish, I thought might as well post it and let everyone read it. So here is the first ever Raymond Responds.

Source: http://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/04viewpoint-when-privilege-blinds-us11

Comment:

I am in agreement that Miss Suzy Lee’s bitterness is over-the-top. She not seems to understand that hearing “be yourself and you’ll do fine” from her peers and believing it constantly makes it ridiculous that she would play Monday morning quarterback upon rejection.

Having said that, to chastise others as somehow overcome by whiteness or blinded by their own privilege for believing that their seemingly flawless resume ought to get them into their dream college is quite disconcerting. The notion that people like Suzy Lee are “riddled with unearned privilege and completely unaware of it” completely oversimplifies how complex a journey it can be to overcome privilege. I am just as “disheartened by these realities” as you, and have participated in 2-3 programs during my time here at Umich that have exposed me very harshly to them. I regularly came home overwhelmed, even crying.

But. The uneasy feelings that arise from being privileged when few others around you are is never a reason to resign oneself to simply “having a million reasons to be thankful.” It seems many with this attitude are blissfully ignoring their own potential because they dont want to feel bad for those with fewer reasons to be thankful. Like it or not, most of the potential you have to succeed in college and beyond is the result of your privilege, and you should not believe that those with less privilege are rooting against you or want you reduced to "their level".

So. It is nice that you have undertaken conscious efforts to come to terms with your own privilege and have found fulfillment by exposing directly yourself to those dealing with these very unfortunate problems. But Suzy Lee’s bitterness and your suggestion that privileged individuals' first reaction when facing hardship should be some sort of "complacency masked as humility" are equally poor ways to react to good fortune. That is why I do not think your “disgusted” attitude is relatable to 95% of those who come from privileged backgrounds.
(I've decided I'm not going to post people's names in case for some reason people agree with me and then consider that as the greenlight to lambast the individual. I know people could simply just go back to the article, but I'd rather them put the extra work into finding it then helping them troll someone unnecessarily. That being said, don't feel restricted from commenting on the articles or event responding to the comments yourself if you feel you have something constructive to say.)

My Response:
Interesting that you choose to evoke "others" when the author is clearly chastising Suzy for her comments, which implied that she thought she didn't get in for a host of reasons, one of them specifically being the fact that she wasn't a minority. You on the other hand undermine the egregious nature of the article, referring to it as merely "over-the-top". Such a designation implies that there is a more tame version of this article that can exist. A tame version of this article (that maintained all the of the points Suzy made (i.e. instead of calling out Elizabeth Warren, just focusing on her lack of diversity) would still be an act of unrecognized privilege. Furthermore, one doesn't overcome privilege. One accepts it. I accept that as a man I am endowed with certain privileges and in that acceptance I make an effort to fight against normative implications of a patriarchal society. Also, you generalize those who accept privilege as "[people] blissfully ignoring their own potential because they don't want to feel bad for those wither fewer reasons to be thankful." This language is unrepresentative of how privilege actually functions. When you refer to those from a targeted identity as having "fewer reasons to be thankful" you create the image of all people being in a surplus of blessings, with some groups being blessed more. Those from a targeted identity can see it in the exact opposite framework. It's most groups being in a deficit (i.e. institutional barriers), while some either breaking even (no barriers) or record a positive gain (institutional privilege). When we work from my framework, the likelihood becomes that the author isn't ignoring her privilege in an attempt to let those without it feel better, but instead is most likely using that privilege and her own hard work to help better the lives of those without it (or people in general). So, no the author isn't suggesting that those of privilege put things in perspective, but instead is making a very specific appeal to someone who evoked an ignorant position that is clearly not cognizant of its own privilege. (note: unedited written at 3 am, but if you want to criticize my grammar/spelling/coherency go ahead 

I hate TEDX conferences

            Just the other day my University had its own TEDx conference, where students, faculty and random pseudo-intellectuals alike, gathered to bask in their own self-enlightenment. It was a day of snobbery and silent judgement.

       What many of the people who attend this conference don't realize is how superficial these conferences really are. It's "inspiration" fetishized and commodified for an elitist group of a particular creed, the creed of "the self-enlightened". I embarrassingly admit that I used to consider myself among their membership, until I actually went to a TED conference, just to find myself in a passive audience being lulled into a false sense of importance by a myriad of both inspiring and self important speakers.
         It was at that moment when I looked around. I scanned the people around me, taking mental snapshots of the facial expression and all I could see was superficiality. Among the the grimaces, I could spot some people, who were truly engaged with the subject matter of the conference, yet afraid to engage in conversation out of the fear that one of the pseudo intellectuals sitting next to them would intervene with their own overvalued two cents. I guess I don't actually hate these conferences, but instead despise the people who herald them.
        The conference claims to be akin to the salons of the European Enlightenment, but I never hear the fierce debates the salons were known for. Ideas never clash, instead we are fed perfectly stitched together propaganda, the likes of which promote a liberal slanted point of view on the world, and I hold no political malice, but I also know that liberal does not always equal intellectual. The purpose of a conference such as TED is to supersede these political ideologies, but I often find myself growing frustrated as the neo-liberalist and the technocrats speak about the world as if they have it figured out. And there will be a token minority here and there, who is allowed to speak about their own personal experience, just to be followed by a loud thunderous applause, which is then proceeded with solutions that aren't germane to the minority's experience. One might ask," how do you know this is the case Raymond? Are you not the presumptuous one?" I can only agree with these accusations, but at least I am presumptuous on a blog, which is self-aware of its critical tone and its short-comings. TED is not self aware. It's a crafted utopia for those who want to feel better about the world they inhabit. When people leave TED they feel they have been enlightened. When people leave TED they feel as if their minds have been dilated. What they don't realize is how little time they were ever given to engage with issues at hand. TED serves as a spoon feeding, fed to a perfectly chosen stock. And this is not intended to disrespect those who give TED speeches, many of them are genuine. But the forum is silent. People consume your ideas and leave. You hope to implant a seed in people with your speech, but when 10 plants are growing simultaneously in a person, do they turn into a forest or simply collapse under the weight of their own gravitas?
      If you want to fix TED, get rid of the application. Get rid of the ridiculous fees. Get rid of the passive sit back and enjoy format and instead open it up to debate. Have people talk. Make it loud and rambunctious so that the ignorant everyday public outside can hear the small cries of the intellectual process in action. Spoon feed them hope, then open up the floor for despair. Let them hear the speech of the angry minority. Let them hear the speech of the disgusted woman. Let them hear the speech of the spiteful poverty stricken person. Then coax them with solutions. Try and test the restorative abilities of your sermon, after someone is so viscerally exposed to the reality of their society. Then claim the enlightenment of the Salon. In fact, reject its orientation and claim the enlightenment of the TED talk.